Is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Moral?

[cvanwey]

The definition of terms proves the illogical claim of 'objective morals'....

- Objective means never changing.
- Objective means independent from human thoughts, tastes, opinions, and emotional reactions.
- Objective synonyms include impartial, unbiased, neutral, fair, open-minded, and even handed.

Morality means the ability to distinguish between right from wrong. However, the terms 'right' and 'wrong' are already subjective, by definition.

By definition, this two-word phrase means “objectively subjective”. To place these two words together is a non sequitur. They do not logically follow one another.

For example, use the following verse below, as a test for claimed objective morals:

(1 Timothy 2:11-12) 'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.'

Objective means never changing. In observance of cultural changes alone, can one see how this might have been more acceptable, or at least tolerable, 2K years ago, but not today? Yes.

Objective means independent from personal thoughts. But, would this command be considered personal? Yes.

Objective means impartial, unbiased, and equal. Doesn't the above passage appear partial, biased, and unequal however? Yes.

Now also ask the following questions below, using reason and logic...


Given the definitions provided above, is it more likely a male chauvinist wrote such a passage, (or), a divine and 'objective' omnibenevolent being wrote such a passage?

Is it also more likely this passage was written when such a claim was more acceptable by society, (or), that an 'objective' and omnibenevolent being commanded permanent law for inequality of women, versus men?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The definitions and premises(what you start with; your basic ideas) are wrong and are of the flesh/ world and are sinful.

 

[frater_domus]

(1 Timothy 2:11-12) 'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.'

From what I have heard, this part is a later addition to the bible. it certainly does not fit Paul, as he was working together with women and appreciated them.
We must always remember that even if the spiritual message of the bible is impacable, is has still be written by people who were influenced by their own time. None of the authors of the NT were aware of the fact that all those letters would end up collected in a book and read throughout the world up to this very day. This is why it is very important to not only read the text, but also analyse the time and situation the writer was in, so that we may draw the correct conclusion.

Thgat my 2 cents on it, anyway.

 

[Dave-W]

Absolutely it is moral.

But without the proper context, I think you are not seeing the text correctly.

"a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;"

"Assume" is too weak a word for that. It is better rendered "usurp;" to take something not freely given. There is an element of self-promotion (not from God) there.

 

[cvanwey]

The definitions and premises(what you start with; your basic ideas) are wrong and are of the flesh/ world and are sinful.

Objectivity, is an unbias observation. Example: One takes their temperature. The thermometer states 98.6 degrees/37 degrees celsius. The conclusion lacks opinion, is unchanging, is even handed, and does not discriminate based upon unnecessary attributes.

According to the above verses, a women cannot be a pastor in a church. What if she is more qualified than all other applicants in her congregation? She is then denied for having a vagina, and because her great great great grandma committed a 'sin'?

Asserting the above is wrong, without a proper rebuttal is madness.

When I read these verses, it appears to state that NO women can obtain the same rank, because they, for all intensive purposes, have a uterus. This is the epitome of subjective, as it does not represent being even-handed, fair, unbias, etc... It discriminates, based upon attributes a women has not control over. Yes, words are conceptual. Humans apply the meaning. But, this was the mechanism in which 'God' chose to use to spread 'truth' ;-)

And until one can demonstrate this was written by anyone other than humans, the DEFAULT position is that these verses were written by male chauvinists. Why, because they are demonstrating inequality based upon attributes in which no woman can control. Meaning, there appears to be an imbalance because they own female sex organs and apparently, Eve took a bite from the wrong apple. Punishing others, for another's crime appears unjust.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The definitions and premises(what you start with; your basic ideas) are wrong and are of the flesh/ world and are sinful.

Confirmed again.

 

[cvanwey]

Confirmed again.

If morality is whatever god says in the Bible, and EVEN assuming God was the author of every word, you are shooting yourself in the foot. You just confirmed that human's basic ideas are 'wrong and of the flesh'. So if you have a brain, and I have a brain, and our brains are flawed, by what EXTRA mechanism did YOU use to determine the Bible was right?

Oh that's right, faith and prayer ;-)

Furthermore, if whatever god says is right, and you claim you receive messages from God, or talk to God, when God tells you to do stuff, how were YOU able to determine the message was actually from God, and not from the devil, since our minds are filled with sin and flawed?????

You must assess your own moral code to determine. I would imagine if a voice told you to kill, you would not do it right? Since your brain is flawed, just like mine, how were you able to assess right from wrong?.?..

Thank you

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You just confirmed that human's basic ideas are 'wrong and of the flesh'.

Yes, if you learn this is truth, that is a good step, and it is a necessary one in order to ever learn from Yahweh and to serve Him instead of the devil/ flesh/ sin.

 

[drjean]

"Now the natural man doesn't receive the things of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can't know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I will share though that one can gain good knowledge from the historical perspective. The women of that day, which was a vast majority of Jews in the early Christian groups, were bringing their pagan activities and beliefs into the Christian groups. They needed to learn to be quiet and not try to run the worship because they were not trained in the "how" of faith in Christ... and had "only" believed in Him for salvation.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, if you learn this is truth, that is a good step, and it is a necessary one in order to ever learn from Yahweh and to serve Him instead of the devil/ flesh/ sin.

This is no less assertive and less unfalsifiable than replacing Yahweh with Muhammad/Allah.

 

[Thedictator]

The definition of terms proves the illogical claim of 'objective morals'....

- Objective means never changing.
- Objective means independent from human thoughts, tastes, opinions, and emotional reactions.
- Objective synonyms include impartial, unbiased, neutral, fair, open-minded, and even handed.

Morality means the ability to distinguish between right from wrong. However, the terms 'right' and 'wrong' are already subjective, by definition.

By definition, this two-word phrase means “objectively subjective”. To place these two words together is a non sequitur. They do not logically follow one another.

For example, use the following verse below, as a test for claimed objective morals:

(1 Timothy 2:11-12) 'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.'

Objective means never changing. In observance of cultural changes alone, can one see how this might have been more acceptable, or at least tolerable, 2K years ago, but not today? Yes.

Objective means independent from personal thoughts. But, would this command be considered personal? Yes.

Objective means impartial, unbiased, and equal. Doesn't the above passage appear partial, biased, and unequal however? Yes.

Now also ask the following questions below, using reason and logic...


Given the definitions provided above, is it more likely a male chauvinist wrote such a passage, (or), a divine and 'objective' omnibenevolent being wrote such a passage?

Is it also more likely this passage was written when such a claim was more acceptable by society, (or), that an 'objective' and omnibenevolent being commanded permanent law for inequality of women, versus men?

You are trying to use human logic to understand God, but that will not work, God is so far beyond human understanding. What we know about God is what he has chosen to reveal to us. You can not understand the deep meaning of God's Word ( The Bible ) with human logic, one needs the Holy Spirit within them to truly understand the Spiritual teachings of God's Word.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This is no less assertive and less unfalsifiable than replacing Yahweh with Muhammad/Allah.

Even the thoughts and motives behind this false statement is immersed in sin.
It is totally wrong and ungodly.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, if you learn this is truth, that is a good step, and it is a necessary one in order to ever learn from Yahweh and to serve Him instead of the devil/ flesh/ sin.

I noticed you addressed practically nothing from the post you hi-jacked with your blank assertions. If you want to be intellectually honest, please address the entire entry, in full context. Otherwise, just read from a distance.

 

[cvanwey]

Even the thoughts and motives behind this false statement is immersed in sin.
It is totally wrong and ungodly.

If you admit human logic is flawed, by what standard were YOU able to determine this?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I noticed you addressed practically nothing from the post you hi-jacked with your blank assertions. If you want to be intellectually honest, please address the entire entry, in full context. Otherwise, just read from a distance.

Yahweh directs my steps and words and posts, in line with His Word;
likewise in the purpose of this Christian site.

Nothing you proposed is right , nor good, nor edifying, nor profitable for life;
note as already posted:

Now the natural man doesn't receive the things of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can't know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you admit human logic is flawed, by what standard were YOU able to determine this?

Already noted in this thread; and previously in many others.....

"Now the natural man doesn't receive the things of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can't know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

[cvanwey]

You are trying to use human logic to understand God, but that will not work, God is so far beyond human understanding. What we know about God is what he has chosen to reveal to us. You can not understand the deep meaning of God's Word ( The Bible ) with human logic, one needs the Holy Spirit within them to truly understand the Spiritual teachings of God's Word.

You, in no way, shape, or form, have addressed the verse 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Please enlighten me, oh enlightened one, as to what logic I'm missing, when I state it seems pretty clear God is discriminating against ALL women because they have a vagina, and their ancient ancestor took a bite from the wrong apple? This is not opinion. These are basically the two reasons even 'God' stated women are to have less rights ;-)

 

[com7fy8]

One thing I see is how the lady is not to take power "over". This goes also for men; we are not to take power over another person >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And we can see how the man and his lady have mutual authority to influence one another > 1 Corinthians 7:4.

 

[redleghunter]

(1 Timothy 2:11-12) 'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.'

Objective means never changing.

The passage is correct. And yes God is never changing. He is immutable.

In observance of cultural changes alone, can one see how this might have been more acceptable, or at least tolerable, 2K years ago, but not today? Yes.

You cannot easily answer the above with a stoic 'yes' without truly understanding human cultural changes with the immutability of God. Meaning, just because fallen man who is in bondage to sin and death chooses to change from the original design of YHWH does not change YHWH or make his immutable truth invalid. The man as head of household, leader in religious activities comes not only from the Law of Moses, but just after the fall of mankind, YHWH said this to the man and woman, Adam and Eve:

Genesis 3: NASB
16To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

17Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;

19By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

20Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all [the] living. 21The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Probably not popular with third wave feminism, but when they start walking on water and can create a universe I might consider differently.

Yet, I digress....Paul was affirming complementarian roles of men and women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which would be supporting the design set forth after the fall by YHWH in Genesis 3:16-21)

Objective means independent from personal thoughts. But, would this command be considered personal? Yes.

As shown above, no it would not be considered personal on Paul's part but affirming the design set forth by YHWH at the time of the fall of mankind.

A more thought provoking question (not the OP but interesting) is if Adam was head over Eve before the Fall. Because notice, Eve is subjected to Adam since she listened to the serpent; and Adam is to toil the ground because he listened to his wife.

Objective means impartial, unbiased, and equal. Doesn't the above passage appear partial, biased, and unequal however? Yes.

It's not and the reason for doing so is because you did not base your assumptions on the Holy Scriptures and the immutability of God.

 

[redleghunter]

From what I have heard, this part is a later addition to the bible. it certainly does not fit Paul, as he was working together with women and appreciated them.

Do you have evidence for this?

None of the authors of the NT were aware of the fact that all those letters would end up collected in a book and read throughout the world up to this very day. This is why it is very important to not only read the text, but also analyse the time and situation the writer was in, so that we may draw the correct conclusion.

Paul encouraged his letters reach other churches and they were copied thousands of times meaning the importance of them to the early church and beyond. The NT is apostolic teachings and Christianity is based on them.